Have you checked News Corp.'s (NYSE: NWS) stock price lately? It's pretty close to the 52-week low. Last Thursday, before the Fourth of July holiday began, News Corp.'s shares closed at $14.76. The 52-week low is $14.58, and the 52-week high is $24.95. As can be seen, it's had quite a fall. And what about competitor Viacom (NYSE: VIA)? The company's stock closed on Thursday with a price of $29.70. That was, in fact, the 52-week low. The 52-week high for Viacom is $44.95. Again, a pretty big dive.

Is it time to enter these two names? From a valuation perspective, considering their growth prospects, the stock prices do make one pause for consideration. They seem cheaper than colleagues Disney (NYSE: DIS) and Time Warner (NYSE: TWX) from certain angles, although the latter two media businesses do have higher dividend yields. But with the big decline in the stock prices, traders certainly have to be looking at them as perhaps candidates for a bounce-back in the second half of the year, especially if the oil situation improves.

I think that's the big problem here. With oil and financials acting in negative ways for the economy, the entire market is one huge growling bear in a bad mood. And that has made me very reticent about initiating a trading position in either News Corp. or Viacom, though I really, really am interested in doing so. I think value trades like this might very well simply be tests of patience at this point. I sense that both these stocks will be higher by the end of the year, but so what? These stocks will probably merely move along with the rest of the major averages, and that movement could be in the downward direction. And News Corp. has been having issues with MySpace.

I think I'll ignore News Corp. and Viacom for the time being, but I will be keeping an eye on them. Yes, their current prices do make one think, but then the market action comes to mind, putting a damper on any positive thoughts.

Disclosure: I own Disney; positions can change at any time.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

It's the Fourth of July weekend, and movie studios want to capture as much money for their films as possible, even if they've already been in the theaters for several weeks. No matter what, though, Sony (NYSE: SNE)'s Hancock, starring the always excellent Will Smith, is set to be the financial superhero of the weekend. Already, as of this writing, the film has taken in about $24 million through Wednesday, according to Boxofficemojo. The movie had some showings on Tuesday before its official debut in the middle of the week. It was number one on Wednesday, followed by Disney (NYSE: DIS)'s Wall-E. The robot flick so far has a total tally of around $86 million.

Poor Marvel (NYSE: MVL) and its The Incredible Hulk project. Will anybody be interested in seeing the big green guy now that Hancock is in the marketplace? Indeed, Hulk took in less than a million bucks on Wednesday, and it ranked number seven for that day. Looks like the Hulk fever is winding down at the multiplex, and it looks like Marvel's stock has had its run for the time being. The stock closed on Thursday at $31.20, well away from the 52-week high of $37.41. I still hold Marvel shares, and although there are no big catalysts on the immediate horizon, I have a long-term outlook on the company. Still, the trader in me wishes that I had lightened up on the position back at the $37 level to book some gains.

Hancock should do well north of $100 million once the Fourth of July holiday period has passed. The marketing, in my opinion, is very compelling, and from what I know about the story, it's a smart idea that provides a nice balance to the frivolous plots of Iron Man and Hulk (I'm using the term "frivolous" here with affection). Sony's scored a hit, maybe even a new franchise (I haven't seen the film, so I can't say if a sequel is feasible or not within the confines of the concept), but it won't do much to move the company's stock. Those looking to play the Hollywood game might want to wait for Marvel to pull back further from current levels.

Disclosure: I own Disney and Marvel; positions can change at any time.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

For those of you who own blue-chip stocks, this is an eye-opening prediction. An article at CNBC.com talks about the possibility of Dow 10,000. Dow 10,000!

I repeated that in case you didn't get it the first time. It sounds pretty scary to me, and it should sound pretty scary to a lot of you out there. I'd have to presume that most investors don't use the stock market primarily as a substitute casino for the times when Las Vegas is out of reach. Many of you out there must own a Disney (NYSE: DIS) or a Coca-Cola (NYSE: KO), maybe a General Electric (NYSE: GE) or a Microsoft (NASDAQ: MSFT), something generally considered core and safe for the long-term. I happen to own the first three. Anyone who does is in for some huge volatility if Dow 10,000 comes along.

Actually, whether it comes along or not, volatility is here to stay. And here's the thing about the Dow 10,000 prediction: it isn't so farfetched on a mathematical basis. When you first read that number, you say to yourself "No way, that would be like a depression!" But because the numbers are getting higher, the actual point moves aren't as dramatic as they may seem on the surface. If we hit 10,000, that would represent a decline of approximately 29% from the high reached back in October 2007. As I write this, the Dow is about 20% off the high. Is another 9% feasible?

It sure is. As the article mentions, John Carter of Trade the Markets makes the prediction on the Dow and says that "a trend is a trend until it ends." What I think is most disturbing about the current state of the markets is that, when a stock like GE is approaching a 5% yield (it currently yields about 4.6%), then a 30% decline in the Dow seems entirely possible. GE is the stock I am watching as one measure for determining when the bear market may finally turn. As long as it stays above 4%, investors and traders alike will need to remain on top of their game.

Now, as for me, I'm not so sure I buy the Dow 10,000 prediction just yet. Dow 11,000 is probably a given at this point since the summer is undoubtedly going to test the patience of many. But with oil so high, and with consumer confidence in need of an uplift, I think the "oil bubble" (assuming you believe it's a bubble) will pop sooner rather than later. If that does actually happen, then we may be safe from Dow 10,000.

So count me skeptical on Dow 10,000. There is no one on the planet who can predict future stock prices, but at least at this point, even though I am bearish on the Dow, I'm not that bearish.

Disclosure: I own Coke, Disney, and GE. Positions can change at any time.

Read | Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

After seeing the interest in yesterday's Serious Money: Five stable stocks for troubled times, I decided to track the stocks on a quarterly basis to see how they hold up over time (otherwise, what would be the purpose of discussing them in the first place?).

I said that all five have shrewd, conservative management teams and have been in the right place, at the right time -- and prepared. The standard for comparison will be the Standard & Poors 500 Index which closed on June 30, 2008 at 1,280.00. Although my original story was published yesterday, I will be using the second quarter end point for my five stocks as well.

1) Johnson and Johnson (NYSE: JNJ) closed at $64.34 and pays a 2.89% dividend yield.

2) Teva Pharmaceuticals ADR (NASDAQ: TEVA) closed at $45.80 and pays a 1% dividend yield.

3) Chubb Corp (NYSE: CB) closed at $49.01 and pays a 2.64% dividend yield.

4) Xcel Energy (NYSE: XEL) closed at $20.07 and pays a 4.81% dividend yield.

5) Walt Disney (NYSE: DIS) closed at $31.20 and pays a 1.11% dividend yield.

I reviewed about 600 stocks before settling on these five. The average yield of the five is 2.49%. That is higher than the average stock fund.

These are not necessarily the stocks I think will appreciate the most in the next twelve months. That list probably would include a few downtrodden names. These are the stocks that I think will hold up well if the stock market continues to be dismal over the next year. Remember the subject was stability. It is not a coincidence that all of them pay a dividend. That is almost always a key factor in long term success.

Sheldon Liber is the CEO of a small private investment company and the principal for design and research at an architecture & planning firm. He writes the columns Chasing Value and Serious Money. DISCLOSURE: I currently own shares of JNJ.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Six months of 2008 are now behind us and the stock market has not been a friendly place to most investors. Stability that was once found in household names that were industry giants is gone, and they have now been brought to their knees.

Many of them were the stocks we might have looked to in the past for stability, so you can be sure I put forward my five candidates with a little trepidation, but forward I go anyway. First a little review is in order.

Citigroup Inc. (NYSE: C) dropped from around $53 per share last year to around $30 in January and we can buy it today for around $17. Even at that price Goldman Sachs (NYSE: GS) has downgraded it to a sell and thinks there is more bad news to come. Citigroup was the largest bank in the world. Not any more.

General Motors (NYSE: GM) was the largest car maker in the world. That was before the stock tumbled from $43 to its current $11 range. A crushing blow to long time investors hoping that someone in the company could stop the ship from sinking.

Goldman Sachs (NYSE: GS) itself is down from $250 to a very soft $177 (it's traded as low as $161.21 today) and does not appear to be at risk as much as some of its competitors, companies that do not look as competitive any more. Bear Stearns is gone, Lehman Brothers Holdings (NYSE: LEH) is on the ropes and Merrill Lynch (NYSE: MER) and Morgan Stanley (NYSE: MS) are teetering.

Reliable software giant Microsoft Inc. (NASDAQ: MSFT) is down from $37.50 to $27 and is so desperate for some traction that it is wasting its time with something called the Zune and made an unsuccessful offer to acquire Yahoo! (NASDAQ: YHOO), which is also down on its luck; 50% down since it rejected the offer.

I do not own any of these stocks, and I could list a thousand stocks to keep them company. Some that I do own as "core holdings" that are down include Huaneng Power Intl ADS (NYSE: HNP) that was trading as high as $57 and is now a more affordable $27 per share. Another one of my favorites, Intuitive Surgical Inc (NASDAQ: ISRG), is down from $360 to $260 and may drop further as hospitals look to conserve capital the rest of the year and into the uncertainty of a new presidential administration and economy. Even that old standby for tough times Berkshire Hathaway (NYSE: BRK.B) has shown weakness dropping 20% from around $5,000 to $4,000 a share.

I could point to some energy and food stocks that have done well this year but those could lose their footing as well if oil prices do not hold up. There are those that think we are in a short term speculative bubble and they could give back some of the this year's gains.

So where to hide? What if anything has been stable? The following five companies made the grade.

1) Johnson and Johnson (NYSE: JNJ): This one is probably not any surprise. There was no money to be made here but you would not have lost any either. Year to date it has traded between $68 and $64 and that is about where it has been for quite some time. It does pay almost a 3% dividend yield and that's mighty fine these days.

2) Teva Pharmaceuticals ADR (NASDAQ: TEVA): Pharmaceuticals have long been a safe haven in troubled times and the world's largest maker of generic drugs is sitting pretty these days with expanding markets everywhere it looks. This Israeli company has traded roughly between $43 and $47 for quite some time, pays a 1% yield and looks to have plenty of upside going forward.

3) Chubb Corp (NYSE: CB) the conservative insurance company has held up better than most of its peers. Over the past six months and going back two years it has hovered between $49 and $54, all the time paying about a 2.6% yield.

4) Xcel Energy (NYSE: XEL) is a holding company for numerous utilities. Over the course of the past twelve volatile months it has been trading in a 10% range between $20 and $22 while paying a huge yield, which today stands at 4.8%.

5) Walt Disney (NYSE: DIS) may be a great place to hide if you want to forget your troubles, whether you chose the new Pixar hit movie "WALL-E" or Disneyland, or a trip down memory lane renting or downloading any one of its countless hits from its film library. The stock is currently trading in the neighborhood of $30.62, mid-point in its 52 week range. Over the past six months it has spent most of the time drifting between $30 and $33 per share with a few drops and pops here and there. The 1.1% yield is not as generous as the others but it I would be happy to take it.

What do they have in common? They are diversified among their industries, have growth horizons, and of course they all pay dividends. But the standout at this juncture seems to be that they all have shrewd conservative management teams -- and they have been in the right place, at the right time, and prepared.

Sheldon Liber is the CEO of a small private investment company and the principal for design and research at an architecture & planning firm. He writes the columns Chasing Value and Serious Money. DISCLOSURE: I currently own shares of BRK.B, HNP, ISRG, JNJ.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

I didn't think Disney's (NYSE: DIS) Wall-E movie would do as well as it did over the weekend. I thought $60 million was too much to hope for (see my previous piece on the subject). I was wrong. According to Boxofficemojo, the Pixar picture pulled in more than $62 million at domestic theaters and came out on top.

Assuming the film continues to do well in upcoming weekends, Wall-E should provide a nice counterbalance to the relative disappointment of Disney's Prince Caspian project that was released in May. While Wall-E won't move Disney's stock all by itself, the movie and its characters should help drive the studio segment in future quarters, as well as provide some opportunities for promotions and initiatives in other parts of the company, such as the theme parks.

Wanted, distributed by General Electric's (NYSE: GE) Universal, debuted in second place with a haul of more than $50 million. The movie, starring Angelina Jolie, had some snazzy, Matrix-like commercials powering its appeal. I can see why the numbers were big on this one. Time Warner (NYSE: TWX) and Get Smart didn't stand a chance against Wanted. It dropped two spots to third place with a tally of $20 million. And, no, I still don't find Steve Carell funny.

DreamWorks Animation's (NYSE: DWA) Kung Fu Panda was number four for the weekend with about $11.7 million, but the important thing with this one is that its total gross now stands at almost $180 million, making the $200 million mark a lock. Marvel's (NYSE: MVL) The Incredible Hulk came in fifth with a gross of around $9 million. Its total to date is $115 million. I had higher hopes for Marvel's second movie of the summer.

I think Wall-E will do well over the Fourth of July, but keep in mind that Will Smith's Hancock hits the screens this week. That project looks like a perfect vehicle for Smith's talents, and its superhero theme should offer a lot of competition for Marvel's Hulk. The fireworks are set to begin shortly.

Disclosure: I own Disney, GE, and Marvel; positions can change at any time.

Read | Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Walt Disney (NYSE: DIS) has an interesting weekend coming up. The new Pixar film, Wall-E, opened today. While everyone expects it to be a hit, no one knows yet how big a hit it will ultimately be.

Pixar, of course, is a major brand in computer-generated cartoons. Its major competition is DreamWorks Animation (NYSE: DWA). The latter's most recent hit, Kung Fu Panda, opened earlier this summer box-office season with a $60.2 million first-weekend take, according to Boxofficemojo. Last year, Ratatouille debuted with a first-weekend take of $47 million. In my mind, for Wall-E to please shareholders and show Disney that its Pixar brand is a reliable money machine, the animated feature needs to do at least $60 million. It can't do anywhere near the Ratatouille flick since that was an example of weak opening performance, in my opinion.

I read a great review on Wall-E at the Hollywood Reporter. The author heaps praises on the film and says that Pixar's streak of success is intact. That's pretty pleasing. Yet, the review also worries me to some extent (I'm a Disney shareholder). The author says that there isn't a lot of dialogue in the picture (I guess the robot characters don't speak) and that it might be such a smart project that some moviegoers might not fully appreciate it. In this competitive timeframe, that doesn't make me feel good. I'd rather the film be simple blockbuster material for the popcorn crowd. I don't want the young kids in the audience to feel their attention spans being strained in the least. I'm not looking for art in this case. I just want my company to make as much money as possible.

Will Wall-E be number one this weekend, beating out the likes of Time Warner's (NYSE: TWX) Get Smart and General Electric's (NYSE: GE) Universal picture Wanted? Without a doubt, Wall-E will rise to the top of the multiplex charts. But will it make $60 million? I have my doubts. Considering Ratatouille's box-office performance in its opening days, and the fact that, from my own anecdotal checks, there doesn't seem to be a huge interest yet in the Wall-E merchandise, I wouldn't be surprised if the sci-fi cartoon ends up with a lower haul.

Disclosure: I own Disney and GE; positions can change at any time.

Read | Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

File this under Only in America; the recently-passed national transportation bill includes $42 million to fund further research on a proposed Anaheim to Las Vegas (Disneyland to Casinoland) magnetic levitation high-speed rail system, designed to whisk the entertainment-starved between the two spots at speeds up to 310 mph. I can just see parents loading the kids on the Maglev and shipping them off to Disneyland (Walt Disney, NYSE:DIS) while Mom and Dad hit the craps tables in Sin City.

This funding, of course, is only a drop in the enormous bucket of this cutting-edge technology. The final cost to construct the system is currently estimated at $12 billion. Imagine the ticket prices- even more than entry to Disneyland, including refreshments!

The technology, which has been under study for more than 20 years, has been proven in a number of demonstration project and is currently in use in several sites, most notably a 19-mile stretch in Shanghai, China. The advent of superconductors has helped the technology leap forward, and many countries have preliminary plans to construct the systems. In the U.S., various groups are promoting maglev lines connecting Baltimore and D.C., San Diego to a new proposed airport, through the Pittsburgh area, and Atlanta to Chattanooga.

Part of the high cost of such system stems from the need to construct new corridors; maglev trains don't operate on rail, but rather float over a different type of rail on a cushion of air maintained by magnetic repulsion. In this respect, finding a corridor across the southern desert should be easier than in densely inhabited areas.

However, I have to wonder if this makes financial sense. Assuming a round-trip price similar to that of an airline ($172 at this moment on Delta), just to gross $12 billion, this train would have to carry 10,000 passengers a day, every day for 20 years. To net $12 billion, the number would probably be, who know? 100,000 a day?

With countries around the world preparing to build their own demonstration projects, wouldn't it be smarter to learn on their dime, and wait until the economies of scale are in our favor before building such a costly system?

And do you suppose our money could be better spent connecting sites of less ephemeral value? In this instance, I wouldn't mind if what happens in Las Vegas stays in Las Vegas.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

There's good news and bad news for shareholders of Disney (NYSE: DIS). The good news, according to data published in this Hollywood Reporter article, is that the latest Disney Channel movie, Camp Rock, achieved better ratings than the first High School Musical movie. Rock attracted 8.9 million eyeballs while the first Musical brought in about 7.7 million viewers. The bad news is that Rock unfortunately couldn't match the success of the second Musical project, which captured the attention of over 17 million viewers.

This movie is extremely important. Disney execs want to find out if they truly know the formula for creating new fads for the kids. This is definitely a strong start, although I thought the movie's ratings might come a little closer to the second Musical film since all we've been hearing about lately is how hot the Jonas Brothers act is right now. It at least should have brought in over 10 million viewers.

I don't know, maybe it's me, but I just don't feel the same kind of buzz for this project as I do for the Musical franchise. Here comes the interesting part: Can Disney grow the movie from here? That will depend on how fickle the Disney Channel audience actually is. Don't fool yourself, the powers that be at Disney are under pressure to form a suitable pipeline of intellectual properties to replace the aging Musical and Hannah Montana brands. Make no mistake, they are aging quickly, as these kinds of things don't have terribly high half-lives.

Shareholders will want to see the Jonas Brothers and Camp Rock really grow into a merchandising phenomenon in the coming months. No matter what, though, the cable channel is a great asset, and it is a strong competitor of Viacom's (NYSE: VIA) Nickelodeon network.

Disclosure: I own Disney; positions can change at any time.

Read | Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Steven Spielberg's DreamWorks baby is preparing to leave Viacom (NYSE: VIA). That sounds bad, doesn't it? I mean, Viacom should, in theory, be freaked out about losing the star asset.

Yet, an analyst working at JP Morgan has a different take on things. According to Bloomberg, Imran Khan thinks that DreamWorks may be perceived as an expensive business asset. He pointed out that the expenses associated with DreamWorks helped drive a 22% decline in operating income for Viacom's film division in 2007. He further pointed out that films with more modest budgets will aid in generating better returns and will, in fact, reduce the risk of investing in the movie business.

Khan is absolutely correct on his call. I've been talking about the need to reduce film budgets for a long time now, probably to the point where people are sick of me, so I'm always glad when I read an opinion such as this. Only problem is, will the studios listen? Well, they should. Disney (NYSE: DIS), Time Warner (NYSE: TWX), News Corp. (NYSE: NWS), and Sony (NYSE: SNE) would all benefit from increased financial restraint when it comes to the business plans of their respective film units.

When DreamWorks does eventually finalize a plan for an exit, I don't think Viacom shareholders have anything to worry about. As Douglas McIntyre mentioned in a recent post, the loss of the DreamWorks team may not mean much considering that we live in a period where stars and brands came can out of the social-networking ether at any point in time. DreamWorks is obviously a stellar asset, and Spielberg is nothing less than an incredibly gifted mogul who can bring in the revenues, but if the loss of DreamWorks has a positive effect on shareholder value, then Viacom's management should welcome it and leverage the event for all its worth. Learn from it, impose discipline on movie budgets, and move forward.

Viacom needs to do all it can to get its stock on better footing. It's now at a 52-week low. Lowering movie budgets and reducing the costs of its film division should be a priority. DreamWorks no longer is.

Disclosure: I own Disney; positions can change at any time.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

I love summer, not only for the weather, but also for all the movies making their way to the multiplexes. According to this article at Marketwatch, for the first six weeks of the U.S. summer box-office season, the total gross for theatrical movies hit $1.46 billion, a statistic that represents about a 5% increase year-over-year in the comparable period. You can thank hits such as Marvel's (NYSE: MVL) Iron Man and Viacom's (NYSE: VIA) Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull for driving the nice results.

Now, I don't mean to rain on this parade, but I'm afraid I find myself in a similar frame of mind in terms of a piece I wrote back in March about the 2007 movie-business statistics. You see, I always like to look at number of tickets sold as a barometer for the true health of Hollywood. The number of tickets sold increased 1.6% to 206.2 million. The average price of a movie ticket rose 2.9% to $7.08. Now, while I am glad to see an increase this time around in terms of number of tickets sold, I don't find a 1.6% increase terribly exciting. It tells me that the theater industry still needs to convince people that it's fun to get out of the house, away from the giant televisions and the snazzy home-theater systems, and chomp on overpriced popcorn in a dark auditorium. Going to movie theaters is something that, in my opinion, can't truly be replicated in the home. A lot of people don't share that opinion, however.

The challenge for Disney (NYSE: DIS), Time Warner (NYSE: TWX), Sony (NYSE: SNE), and General Electric's (NYSE: GE) Universal is to make people feel that waiting for the DVD shouldn't be the norm. The shared experience of a movie screening is a unique part of culture, and studios need to communicate this fact through their marketing campaigns. I do think there is more work ahead for Hollywood. Focus on the number of tickets sold, that's the big metric.

Disclosure: I own Disney and GE; positions can change at any time.

Read | Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Google (NASDAQ: GOOG) wants to see if the attention span of its YouTube users can be stretched a bit. According to this Fortune article, YouTube seems to think that short clips might not necessarily be the backbone of long-term growth. Instead, longer videos might make the site more valuable. Why is this? Well, the article intimates that the founders of the site, Chad Hurley and Steve Chen, think there's a market out there that might want something more than simple, user-generated content that focuses on the banal side of life for about three minutes per clip.

I see the point here. Google wants to figure out, once and for all, the best way to monetize its YouTube investment. This isn't the easiest thing to do, since users of YouTube are, in theory, only interested in seeing short content as fast as possible. They don't want to be burdened by ads. But YouTube is betting that maybe, just maybe, by going against theory and putting on longer material of better quality, the eyeballs will become more intrigued and will perhaps be willing to view a greater quantity of videos. It all comes down to the quality of the content.

I find this to be a very interesting concept, and I think testing long-form content is justified. But I wouldn't hold out much hope for huge success with this initiative. The article cites the success of Francis Stokes, who received a development deal with the Sci-Fi Channel based on a long-form piece of content. But for every Francis Stokes, there's going to be many examples of long-form content that people could care less about. And you still have the issue of ad-resistance in terms of the users. Even YouTube's spokeswoman, Julie Supan, says that the brief-clip format is the essence of YouTube's initial attraction for web surfers.

Courting short filmmakers also is a way for YouTube to prove that it isn't just a platform for items pirated from the portfolios of media companies like Disney (NYSE: DIS), Time Warner (NYSE: TWX) and Viacom (NYSE: VIA). That will help build brand equity for the social-networking site. But again, it's difficult to say if long content will suddenly transform YouTube into the stuff of advertisers' dreams. And the other confusing thing is the whole about-face nature of the issue. Wasn't everyone fascinated by the artistic challenges of making three-minute films? Guess that isn't so hip anymore. YouTube seems to want it all. It wants to be the king of the four-minute video and the forty-minute film. I'm not sure these two worlds can exist in serenity.

Disclosure: I own Disney; positions can change at any time.

Read | Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Disney (NYSE: DIS) needs more and more very young stars to appeal to the teenage demographic. Its ability to deliver this group to advertisers is critical to the company's success.

Disney recently signed 15-year old Demi Lovato to a new record deal. According to The Wall Street Journal, "For Disney, there are few more crucial tasks than finding and developing talent that appeals to 8- to 12-year-olds." The company already has big teen sensation Miley Cyrus, aka Hannah Montana.

With all of the money being made from the TV shows, records and movies using these youngsters as talent, perhaps no one is pausing to ask whether it is good for a 15-year-old to be taken out of a fairly normal family and childhood to be paraded around the world so that Disney can make money. Although no one keeps statistics on this, it seems that these kid are more likely to have drinking, drug and personality problems within a few years of when they become extraordinarily famous.

But they are used up then, and are not of any use to Disney. So, who cares?

Douglas A. McIntyre is an editor at 247wallst.com.

Read | Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Sheldon Liber is the CEO of a small private investment company and the principal for design and research at an architecture & planning firm. He writes the columns Chasing Value and Serious Money. Disclosure: I do not own shares in any of the stocks mentioned.

Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

I recently wrote about World Wrestling Entertainment's (NYSE: WWE) million-dollar giveaway plans. This is the scheme that sees the Mr. McMahon character reward viewers who register at the company's website with portions of his fortune. He calls them up on the phone during WWE's RAW program and doles out various sums; according to this press release, one winner got $200,000, while another player received $125,000. One poor hapless soul won $2! Remember, Mr. McMahon is an evil guy.

I tuned in to see how the contest would be presented and to get some sense of how it was received. It seemed a bit awkward and slow at times. A few in the audience screamed that they were bored. Personally, I thought it was goofy fun to see Vince McMahon calling people to hand out some of his money and enjoyed it for what it was. But WWE will need to optimize the segment and try to make it more exciting, as I don't think it came off exactly as it wanted. McMahon is supposed to keep handing out $1 million a week for an unspecified time period, so the company will have more chances to improve the presentation.

WWE wants to really juice the ratings for the RAW brand, hoping that viewers beyond the hardcore fan base will stop watching networks owned by CBS (NYSE: CBS), Disney (NYSE: DIS), News Corp. (NYSE: NWS), and General Electric (NYSE: GE) long enough to sample the spectacle of the WWE product (of course, GE's NBC Universal owns the USA cable network, which RAW runs on). McMahon is smart to be trying something like this since WWE will be working its way up to perhaps one of its biggest pay-per-view opportunities ever: Wrestlemania 25. With a milestone like that coming, the company has a chance of really expanding its brand equity and setting the stage for long-term growth.

If you do believe in WWE, the stock is actually quite interesting right now. The yield on the shares is near 9.5% as of Friday's close, and the share price has experienced a pullback along with the market. Maybe those winning McMahon's money should sock some of the bucks away in WWE (admittedly, the cash-flow characteristics do have me a little concerned).

Disclosure: I own Disney and GE; positions can change at any time.

Read | Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Yesterday, I wrote about my nervousness over Marvel's (NYSE: MVL) The Incredible Hulk. Today, I'd like to talk about how I wouldn't be so nervous if the Iron Man sequel ended up being directed by someone other than Jon Favreau. There are two excellent articles on The Motley Fool discussing this issue, one by Nathan Alderman and one by Marvel expert Tim Beyers. At the time those articles were published earlier in the week, it had seemed that Marvel was reticent about ponying up a higher compensation package for Mr. Favreau on the heels of the awesome success of the first movie starring Robert Downey, Jr. David Maisel, chairman of Marvel Studios, apparently wants to be very conservative about the company's above-the-line costs. Alderman thinks Marvel should give Favreau the requested raise, while Beyers understands the Hollywood dynamics going on and can see why both sides are doing what they are doing.

By the time my own piece is published, it's possible Favreau may be confirmed as the director of the second Iron Man (as I write this, there are rumors that a deal has been offered). Regardless of what happens, I'd like to offer my opinion on whether or not Favreau is an absolutely necessary component for an Iron Man sequel.

He isn't. And if shareholders think he is, then they had better rethink their investment in Marvel. What shareholders must ask themselves is this: Is it the director that is responsible for the ultimate success of a Marvel film, or is it Marvel management and the intangible value of the Marvel intellectual-property portfolio? Which element adds more equity? As far as I'm concerned as a shareholder, I'm investing in Marvel. I'm not investing in Jon Favreau. Any investor who believes that any one director is indispensable is going to be in for a stomach-churning ride, because when the day comes that a Jon Favreau or a Sam Raimi (he directed the Spider-Man flicks) decides that Marvel is no longer paying them what they're worth and jumps ship, the stock could easily see an overreaction sell-off.

Indeed, shareholders need to also remember that Marvel has given a rough estimate of the effect different box-office milestones will have on the value of the company. If one of the self-produced movies grosses $100 million at the multiplex, it will have a different effect than a movie that grosses $300 million. I'd have to presume that if Marvel continues to give all kinds of raises and increased participation schemes to above-the-line talent as new sequels are announced, then shareholders might not see the predicted effect on earnings flow that Marvel has stated in the past. It's hard to say without knowing specifics of each deal (it's too bad Marvel doesn't have to disclose that information).

According to Beyers, Favreau stated in a radio interview that he received $4 million for Iron Man. If Favreau were to receive $4 million for a sequel and no backend participation, call me crazy, but I find that fair. It's not like he's risking anything. Hey, I'm risking my money here. If his sequel tanks, I get punished. He still gets to keep a ton of dough, and he gets to have fun doing a job that most of us will never get a chance of doing. I'm a wannabe screenwriter, and I can tell you this -- I'd write the sequel for a heck of a lot less than whatever they'll be paying the writer that actually does it.

Disney (NYSE: DIS), Time Warner (NYSE: TWX), Viacom (NYSE: VIA), News Corp. (NYSE: NWS), and any other media company looking to create value for its shareholders needs to keep budgets under control. If signing up a cheaper director is what needs to be done, then do it. I'd be willing to bet that Jon Favreau isn't the only guy out there who can direct an Iron Man feature. And I'm sure Marvel has the skill to find a replacement if need be.

Disclosure: I own Disney and Marvel; positions can change at any time.

Read | Read | Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

I have a confession to make: I'm getting nervous as the weekend approaches. A certain movie has me rather frightened. Is it that creepy picture about mass suicides from M. Night Shyamalan? Nope. It's Marvel's (NYSE: MVL) The Incredible Hulk. I'm a shareholder of Marvel, and I'm worried about its prospects. It opens on Friday the 13th. Yeah, that's a lucky omen.

Hulk, which is being distributed by General Electric's (NYSE: GE) Universal (I own GE as well, but this won't move GE at all), represents a fresh start for the green, angry beast. If you'll recall, there was a Hulk movie back in summer 2003. It was horrible. In fact, I remember getting up and walking around the theater during a portion of the film so that I could do a bit of self-editing on it. This time around could be different. I just read a review from The Hollywood Reporter that was featured in this Reuters link, and I have to say, I do feel a little calmer. According to the review, this new take on the Hulk character is an entertaining cinematic diversion wholly suitable for the dog days of summer. It apparently is a superior product.

Read | Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Merchandise sales based on characters and intellectual properties owned by companies such as Time Warner (NYSE: TWX), which licenses heroes such as Batman, and Viacom's (NYSE: VIA) Nickelodeon, which has had great success with SpongeBob SquarePants, don't compare.

The article rightfully reminds readers that the total amount generated in retail sales is only an indication of how seemingly popular a company's brands are in the marketplace. It does not point to the amount of revenues or profit a company books on the sales (Disney will only receive a small percentage of those sales, perhaps between 5% and 15%).

The important thing I take away from this as a shareholder is that Disney is doing a reasonably good job of milking its franchises. As one might expect, the usual suspects were cited as drivers: Hannah Montana, High School Musical, the Jonas Brothers music project, and Disney Princesses are doing the heavy lifting for Disney's consumer-products division, along with a property that continues to surprise me: Cars. Amazing that the latter remains a popular seller in the boys category.

One thing that has been on my mind is the question of how long can Disney's two current hot franchises, Hannah Montana and High School Musical, remain in the good graces of the fickle tween audience. That's a constant worry. Shareholders may wake up one day and realize that the world has moved on from these two properties. That's why I hope to closely watch the tracking data on the Jonas Brothers. This brand has a Disney Channel flick coming up shortly, entitled Camp Rock.

Besides the Jonas act, I hope Disney is incubating other discoveries. It's not an easy job to figure out where the next big thing is coming from, and the process is nowhere close to perfect, but Disney needs to aggressively focus on remaining a leader in the tween space, and to not rest on its laurels. You know, Nickelodeon could stumble upon its own Hannah at any time.

I have to admit, I am disappointed that the article didn't make any mention of Mickey Mouse or Donald Duck. Yes, those characters are aging, and their icon status might not be so strong among the very young these days. Hopefully Disney has plans to work on its portfolio of classic characters and make them as relevant as they can in this era of Miley Cyrus and Pixar cartoons.

Again, though, as a shareholder, I do appreciate the synergistic appeal of Disney's various divisions and how they work in concert to deliver double-digit growth in retail sales for consumer merchandise. And I hope Disney keeps the growth going by finding new fads for the tweens to fall in love with.

Disclosure: I own Disney; positions can change at any time.

Read | Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments

Steven Spielberg wants to reboot the DreamWorks brand, according to this article. He's not happy being at Viacom's (NYSE: VIA) Paramount and not having full ownership of his films. What he wants to do now is see if he can summon $1 billion in financing to catalyze this new phase in his life.

Of course, the phrase "see if he can" is probably not the most accurate one to use when talking about Spielberg. When it comes to Hollywood, his word is scripture, and if he asks for financing, he'll have more takers than he can handle. After raising his billion bucks, Spielberg needs to decide which studio will be a perfect home for his new celluloid ambitions. Although the article states that there is a possibility he can land anywhere, to me, there's no ambiguity whatsoever.

Spielberg will end up at General Electric's (NYSE: GE) Universal (if I could be as sure about the price of oil as I am about Spielberg and Universal, I'd be a rich, rich man). He and his Amblin shingle have had a long relationship with Universal, and simply put, that's where he wants to be. It's funny to consider Disney (NYSE: DIS) and News Corp. (NYSE: NWS) as potential new homes for DreamWorks. Disney definitely wouldn't want him since the Mouse is being very conservative in terms of film making, and although News Corp. would love to overpay for him (I think News Corp. enjoys overpaying for things at times), I just don't see Spielberg going to Fox.

Here's what Spielberg should do in terms of the financing issue: tap the capital markets with an IPO to fund the new DreamWorks. Sure, he's likely to go the private equity route, since he probably doesn't want to have Wall Street demanding growth prospects each and every quarter. Then again, Paul Allen was instrumental in the decision to bring DreamWorks Animation (NYSE: DWA) to market as a method for extracting value from the DreamWorks venture, so it's not like Spielberg isn't familiar and experienced with the whole deal. If a DreamWorks live-action company went public, Spielberg could whip up a bunch of money for a slate of movies and focus on generating as much cash flow as possible from the portfolio so that dividends could be paid and shareholders would be happy. He probably wouldn't be able to own the films exactly as he'd like under a public offering, but heck, I say live a little, Steven, have some fun on Wall Street and let the people directly share in your success!

Spielberg won't do much for GE shareholders certainly, but it will be interesting to see how NBC Universal capitalizes on him if he does actually go to the company's studio division. So long as he doesn't make a sequel to 1941, everything should work out.

Disclosure: I own Disney and GE; positions can change at any time.

Read | Permalink | Email this | Linking Blogs | Comments